Nine months? That's all he got? Now that is a crime.

Wow, I worked for that company for 2 years. Thank god I now work for a company that was raided by the Feds a few years ago.

coeyagi: Wow, I worked for that company for 2 years. Thank god I now work for a company that was raided by the Feds a few years ago.

Steve Jackson Games?

/That would be awesome.

Bloody William: coeyagi: Wow, I worked for that company for 2 years. Thank god I now work for a company that was raided by the Feds a few years ago.

Steve Jackson Games?

/That would be awesome.

Nope. We were raided a lot more recently.

Sure, a few patients died. The important thing is that companies have free speech rights. Because they're people just like us


But you can't hold a whole industry responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole health care system? And if the whole health care system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our corporate institutions in general? I put it to you, Submitter: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

HoboCop: I'm literally sitting 500m away from the headquarters of that company.

QVC?

Three patients died on the operating table.

So he murdered three people with prior planning in the name of increasing already exorbitant profit margins and only got nine months in prison. Great. In the meantime, if somebody kills three people by accident in the commission of a robbery because they've been laid off and have no food or medicine for their family they're facing 25 to life.

Hoffinger also wrote that the conviction and sentence were improper because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 2011 that supported First Amendment rights to free speech for pharmaceutical and device companies in their marketing efforts.

Particularly ironic line of reasoning given that this is exactly the sort of bad situation that critics of the decision were afraid would happen back when the conservative justices basically argued that it was just too farking bad if people got bad treatment as a result of marketers exerting their supposed free speech rights in a way that negatively affected treatment decisions.

So there you have it. The arguments is - and this is an argument backed by the conservative supreme court "justices" - that pharmaceutical companies are legally allowed to murder you just as long as they do it in a way that they can claim they were merely exercising their free speech rights when they negatively influenced your doctor's treatment decisions.

The best part is you'll be none the wiser because at no point in any of this does anybody have to tell you that the treatment you're getting is based on some big-titted marketramp handing out free pens instead of on sound medical science.

At least he wasn't caught with a pound of weed. Then he'd be in real trouble.

Bone cement?

He got 9 months because he is part of the 1%. If poor people don't want to do the time for their crimes, they should become rich.

Jake Havechek: Don Roritor: Your drug is effectively changing the world for the better. It's important that you know that. Have you heard that crack is gone? Crime is down... and oddly enough, so is tourism.

Were there any Fliiper-babies?

PanicMan: Bone cement?

It's a type of plexiglass that connects prosthetics to bone. It basically is what it says it is: cement for bonding things to bone. It's kind of neat. They mix a dry powder and some type of liquid and it turns into a sort of playdough-y type of glue until it sets.

/ docs used it on my mother when she had her knee replaced

Splinshints: Three patients died on the operating table.

So he murdered three people with prior planning in the name of increasing already exorbitant profit margins and only got nine months in prison. Great. In the meantime, if somebody kills three people by accident in the commission of a robbery because they've been laid off and have no food or medicine for their family they're facing 25 to life.

Hoffinger also wrote that the conviction and sentence were improper because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 2011 that supported First Amendment rights to free speech for pharmaceutical and device companies in their marketing efforts.

Particularly ironic line of reasoning given that this is exactly the sort of bad situation that critics of the decision were afraid would happen back when the conservative justices basically argued that it was just too farking bad if people got bad treatment as a result of marketers exerting their supposed free speech rights in a way that negatively affected treatment decisions.

So there you have it. The arguments is - and this is an argument backed by the conservative supreme court "justices" - that pharmaceutical companies are legally allowed to murder you just as long as they do it in a way that they can claim they were merely exercising their free speech rights when they negatively influenced your doctor's treatment decisions.

The best part is you'll be none the wiser because at no point in any of this does anybody have to tell you that the treatment you're getting is based on some big-titted marketramp handing out free pens instead of on sound medical science.

Great news everyone! The free market provides ample remedies: you can sue them. Sure, it won't bring back dead people, and with tort reform damages are capped at $200K, but remember, only humans were harmed - not embryos or job creators.

Seems if corporations are people then this corporation is guilty of manslaughter*.

So uh . . . book 'em.

/I would be ok holding corporations to that standard. Sentence everyone in charge for the actions of the entire entity. And none of this "over-zealous aide" nonsense.


*negligence rather than real malice, I think that's manslaughter. Not a lawyer.

fark this guy.

no charges for the surgeons?

robmilmel: Karma Curmudgeon: But you can't hold a whole industry responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole health care system? And if the whole health care system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our corporate institutions in general? I put it to you, Submitter: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

+1 and a dildo in a medical bag!

Why does this dildo smell like Axe body spray?

sprawl15: robmilmel: Karma Curmudgeon: But you can't hold a whole industry responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole health care system? And if the whole health care system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our corporate institutions in general? I put it to you, Submitter: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

+1 and a dildo in a medical bag!

Why does this dildo smell like Axe body spray?

... Xbox.

Where is Jack McCoy when you need him?

/I can totally imagine the episode they'd make from this story.
//They'd probably even get that one attorney who's all about 1st amendment rights to take over the case for the defendants.
///and Sam Waterston would stick it to 'em all.

Splinshints: Three patients died on the operating table.

So he murdered three people with prior planning in the name of increasing already exorbitant profit margins and only got nine months in prison. Great. In the meantime, if somebody kills three people by accident in the commission of a robbery because they've been laid off and have no food or medicine for their family they're facing 25 to life.

Hoffinger also wrote that the conviction and sentence were improper because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 2011 that supported First Amendment rights to free speech for pharmaceutical and device companies in their marketing efforts.

Particularly ironic line of reasoning given that this is exactly the sort of bad situation that critics of the decision were afraid would happen back when the conservative justices basically argued that it was just too farking bad if people got bad treatment as a result of marketers exerting their supposed free speech rights in a way that negatively affected treatment decisions.

So there you have it. The arguments is - and this is an argument backed by the conservative supreme court "justices" - that pharmaceutical companies are legally allowed to murder you just as long as they do it in a way that they can claim they were merely exercising their free speech rights when they negatively influenced your doctor's treatment decisions.

The best part is you'll be none the wiser because at no point in any of this does anybody have to tell you that the treatment you're getting is based on some big-titted marketramp handing out free pens instead of on sound medical science.

Yes, the best thing we could do right now is execute every person on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the true heart of the corruption and evil that has pervaded our government.

Karma Curmudgeon: Sure, a few patients died. The important thing is that companies have free speech rights. Because they're people just like us


But you can't hold a whole industry responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole health care system? And if the whole health care system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our corporate institutions in general? I put it to you, Submitter: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

I went from enraged to giggling in under twenty seconds. Nice work!

/Doesn't have enough flowers for everyone

[puts on Devil's Advocate hat]

Okay, I can see charging the doctor, but why the manufacturer? Isn't it ultimately the doctor's decision whether to break the law and use an unapproved medical procedure?

Splinshints: Three patients died on the operating table.

So he murdered three people with prior planning in the name of increasing already exorbitant profit margins and only got nine months in prison. Great. In the meantime, if somebody kills three people by accident in the commission of a robbery because they've been laid off and have no food or medicine for their family they're facing 25 to life.

Hoffinger also wrote that the conviction and sentence were improper because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 2011 that supported First Amendment rights to free speech for pharmaceutical and device companies in their marketing efforts.

Particularly ironic line of reasoning given that this is exactly the sort of bad situation that critics of the decision were afraid would happen back when the conservative justices basically argued that it was just too farking bad if people got bad treatment as a result of marketers exerting their supposed free speech rights in a way that negatively affected treatment decisions.

So there you have it. The arguments is - and this is an argument backed by the conservative supreme court "justices" - that pharmaceutical companies are legally allowed to murder you just as long as they do it in a way that they can claim they were merely exercising their free speech rights when they negatively influenced your doctor's treatment decisions.

The best part is you'll be none the wiser because at no point in any of this does anybody have to tell you that the treatment you're getting is based on some big-titted marketramp handing out free pens instead of on sound medical science.

This has nothing to do with free speech. This isn't marketing. It's grasping for straws. Free speech does not allow you to practice unapproved(or illegal) medicine, whether you're a single doctor or a company of doctors.

How can you appeal a guilty plea?

I know that bathroom stall airport senator tried to do this and the judge laughed at him.

blahpers: [puts on Devil's Advocate hat]

Okay, I can see charging the doctor, but why the manufacturer? Isn't it ultimately the doctor's decision whether to break the law and use an unapproved medical procedure?

manufacturer misrepresented the product. They are more culpable than the doctors who are only guilty of gullibility and neglecting their duties to their patients assuming they were unaware of the manufacturers fraud.

Doctors still should be charged as well, I think.

Guidette Frankentits: How can you appeal a guilty plea?

I know that bathroom stall airport senator tried to do this and the judge laughed at him.

he's appealing the sentence

skullkrusher: he's appealing the sentence

FTFA: Former Synthes executive Thomas Higgins, who pleaded guilty in 2009 to a criminal charge for his role in an illegal promotion and clinical trial of bone cement, sought Monday to delay the start of his nine-month prison term while he appeals his conviction and sentence.

FTA: Michael Huggins, 54, of West Chester, the former president of Synthes USA, was sentenced to nine months; John Walsh, 48, of Coatesville, was sentenced to five months. Richard Bohner, 56, of Malvern, will be sentenced at a later date.

Dick Bohner.

Guidette Frankentits: skullkrusher: he's appealing the sentence

FTFA: Former Synthes executive Thomas Higgins, who pleaded guilty in 2009 to a criminal charge for his role in an illegal promotion and clinical trial of bone cement, sought Monday to delay the start of his nine-month prison term while he appeals his conviction and sentence.

hmm... there's that. I guess you can appeal a guilty plea if you plea guilty to a crime in violation of your constitutional protections.

Wait, bone cement? You mean like JB Weld or Gorilla Glue?

Muta: FTA: Michael Huggins, 54, of West Chester, the former president of Synthes USA, was sentenced to nine months; John Walsh, 48, of Coatesville, was sentenced to five months. Richard Bohner, 56, of Malvern, will be sentenced at a later date.

Dick Bohner.

The real criminals in that case were his brother Cox, his sister Ryder and their step-sibling Enormous Genitals.

skullkrusher: hmm... there's that. I guess you can appeal a guilty plea if you plea guilty to a crime in violation of your constitutional protections.

The way I understand it, you can appeal anything unless you're the prevailing party?

Splinshints: PanicMan: Bone cement?

It's a type of plexiglass that connects prosthetics to bone. It basically is what it says it is: cement for bonding things to bone. It's kind of neat. They mix a dry powder and some type of liquid and it turns into a sort of playdough-y type of glue until it sets.

/ docs used it on my mother when she had her knee replaced

I was picturing a paving company and was very confused.

He's saying 9 months is excessive when he knowingly put an illegal and dangerous product to market resulting in the deaths of 3 people?

F*ck you, buddy. There's guys out there get 10 times that for knocking over a 7-11. What you got was a hand slap and an injustice.

Guidette Frankentits: skullkrusher: hmm... there's that. I guess you can appeal a guilty plea if you plea guilty to a crime in violation of your constitutional protections.

The way I understand it, you can appeal anything unless you're the prevailing party?

no law talking guy but that would make sense.

coeyagi: Bloody William: coeyagi: Wow, I worked for that company for 2 years. Thank god I now work for a company that was raided by the Feds a few years ago.

Steve Jackson Games?

/That would be awesome.

Nope. We were raided a lot more recently.

You know, I recently played 7 Wonders w/someone who has Munchkin as one of his favorite games. It was the first time he played 7 Wonders, and I could tell by the questions he was asking he was absolutely ignoring the Very Obvious spirit of the rules and going for the absolutely slimy technical reading of those rules. Rules lawyering is fine, but you don't have to be such an unbelievable douche about it.

Needless to say, I despise Munchkin and won't play it.

Some day submitter will learn how to read and realize the 1st amendment enforcement action is on the government and not a right granted to the masses. How much clearer can "congress shall" be? It doesn't say make no law in regards to individuals but corporations are fine.

The constitution deliniates the powers of the government, it does not grant enumerated individual rights.

Bone Cement would be a great porn name. Just sayin.

swahnhennessy: He's saying 9 months is excessive when he knowingly put an illegal and dangerous product to market resulting in the deaths of 3 people?

F*ck you, buddy. There's guys out there get 10 times that for knocking over a 7-11. What you got was a hand slap and an injustice.

But he's ostensibly a job creator. Removing him from circulation would be bad for society. Can you imagine if we raised his taxes AND put him away for life? I think that is akin to ending Western Civilization or something.

Fart_Machine: Bone Cement would be a great porn name. Just sayin.

or at least a good name for what the result of your self-love session turns into in that old sock under your bed

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Bone Cement would be a great porn name. Just sayin.

or at least a good name for what the result of your self-love session turns into in that old sock under your bed

Whatever it's called, if it can be sold, a Manning brother will try to sell it like the cheap ad whores they are.